Opinion
A161596
06-30-2021
In re K.V., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.V., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. 5044-DEP & 6003-DEP
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
In this dependency action, C.V. (Father) appeals the juvenile court's orders terminating his reunification services with one child and denying his motion to reinstate reunification with a second child. We affirm the court's orders.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of newborn B.K. after he tested positive for methadone and benzodiazepine at birth. In an amended petition, the Department alleged Father had a history of drug-related convictions and probation violations, had recently tested positive for amphetamine, and had completed a residential treatment program in 2013 but continued to minimize his substance abuse problems. The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed B.K. from both parents, and ordered reunification services. Father received six months of reunification services and 18 months of family maintenance services. In April 2019, the Department recommended dependency be dismissed with sole custody to Father, although the social worker expressed concerns with a September 2018 positive drug test and Father's need to complete a six-month outpatient treatment program. The Department's report noted that B.K.'s half-sibling, N.V., was also residing in the home. On August 7, 2019, the juvenile court dismissed B.K.'s dependency case.
All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We omit background facts about the mothers of both minors, who are not parties to this appeal.
We use what the record indicates are N.V.'s preferred name and pronouns.
Less than one month later, law enforcement reported to Father's home and found Father unconscious with a methamphetamine pipe under his head and numerous pill bottles scattered around the room. B.K., then two years old, was alone upstairs, crying and calling for help. The home was in disarray with trash on the floor and multiple hazards were accessible to B.K., including knives and a loaded pellet gun. Father's 14-year-old child, N.V., had not been picked up from school that day and the school had been unable to reach either Father or N.V.'s mother. The Department filed section 300 petitions as to both minors.
The Department's jurisdiction/disposition reports stated Father has a chronic substance abuse problem, relapsed on methamphetamine, was hospitalized in September 2019 with methamphetamine-induced cardiomyopathy, and was unable to care for the minors. Father told the Department he was sober and denied the methamphetamine pipe found under his head was his. In October 2019, the juvenile court sustained N.V.'s petition and ordered reunification services for both Father and N.V.'s mother. In November 2019, Father and B.K.'s mother waived reunification services with B.K. and the court ordered a plan of guardianship with B.K.'s maternal grandparents.
In an April 2020 report filed in advance of N.V.'s six-month review hearing, the Department noted N.V. had struggled with mental health issues during the reporting period, including two hospitalizations for suicidal thoughts, and had exhibited substantial behavioral issues. N.V. had initially been placed with a relative caregiver, then moved to a group home, and was currently at a residential treatment center. Father had made some progress on his case plan, although progress was slowed by his medical issues, and all Department drug tests had been negative. Father's visits were initially supervised but had been moved to unsupervised. The juvenile court continued services and set a 12-month review hearing.
Meanwhile, in March 2020, the Department filed a petition to remove B.K. from his maternal grandparents' guardianship because B.K. had multiple injuries the guardians could not explain; the home had hazards accessible to B.K., including drug paraphernalia; and the guardians allowed B.K.'s mother to live in the home and have unsupervised contact with B.K., despite knowing about the mother's substance abuse issues. B.K. was placed in an emergency foster home. In June, after a contested evidentiary hearing at which Father and two social workers testified, the juvenile court dissolved the guardianship. The court bypassed reunification services for both Father and B.K.'s mother under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Reunification services can be bypassed if the court finds “[t]hat the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court's attention....” (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13).)
In September 2020, the Department filed a report in advance of B.K.'s section 366.26 hearing. Father's visits were virtual, due to Covid-19 restrictions, and supervised. Father acted appropriately and was loving, but B.K. was described as ambivalent. The Department reported that B.K. did not have strong ties to Father or other family members, instead viewing them as friendly visitors. B.K. appeared secure and comfortable in his foster home with strong attachment behaviors to the prospective adoptive mother. The potential adoptive parents were sensitive and responsive to B.K.'s needs and expressed their desire to adopt B.K. The Department recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights and order a permanent plan of adoption. B.K.'s counsel agreed with the recommendation.
In an October 2020 report filed in advance of the 12-month review hearing in N.V.'s case, the Department reported Father failed to appear for criminal proceedings stemming from the incident leading to the current dependency cases, made suicidal threats on two occasions, and stopped responding to the social worker after she testified at the contested hearing on B.K.'s guardianship. Father subsequently sent the social worker multiple inappropriate text messages accusing her of lying and committing perjury. Father missed the vast majority of his drug tests and largely failed to make progress with other services. Father's visits were initially unsupervised at N.V.'s treatment center but became supervised after Father brought an unauthorized friend of N.V.'s and then brought a piercing gun and pierced N.V.'s lip. Father's visits were inconsistent and he encouraged N.V. to misbehave and speak inappropriately to staff. N.V. told the social worker he did not want to return home and would rather be adopted. The Department recommended the juvenile court terminate Father's reunification services but continue services for N.V.'s mother. N.V.'s counsel agreed with the Department's recommendation.
In November 2020, Father filed a section 388 petition seeking reunification services with B.K. Father cited as changed circumstances his improving health, sobriety, and participation in parenting classes and therapy. Attached documents showed Father had begun parenting classes earlier that month and had recently attended one therapy session.
On November 30, 2020, the juvenile court held a combined hearing on N.V.'s 12-month review, Father's section 388 petition as to B.K., and B.K.'s section 366.26 hearing. Father testified his health was much improved and he currently had about 95 percent heart function. He was sober and had been attending AA/NA meetings for approximately a month and a half, although he did not have a sponsor and had not provided the social worker with proof of attendance. He admitted to drinking alcohol about a month and a half before the hearing. He began parenting classes a few weeks before the hearing and had taken anger management courses in 2015 and 2016. He testified that his lack of communication with the social worker was due to poor cell reception at his house. He also testified he missed drug tests because he did not receive the message in time, he had other appointments, and “some times... I just have ‘me' time. And if it falls within one of those days, its -- it doesn't happen.”
The juvenile court terminated Father's reunification services with N.V., finding no substantial probability Father would reunify with N.V. within the 18-month statutory period. The court continued reunification services for N.V.'s mother.
With respect to B.K., the juvenile court denied Father's section 388 petition, finding Father had shown only “changing circumstances, ” but not changed circumstances. The court terminated parental rights as to B.K. and ordered a permanent plan of adoption.
B.K.'s counsel agreed with the Department's recommendation to deny this petition.
DISCUSSION
I. Termination of Reunification Services as to N.V.
“At the conclusion of a 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court shall continue the case for up to six months if there is a ‘substantial probability' a child will be returned to a parent's custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) A ‘substantial probability' of reunification requires the court to find that the parent: regularly contacted and visited the child; ‘made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home'; and ‘demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of [the] treatment plan and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.' (Ibid.) We uphold the court's findings if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] We resolve all conflicts in favor of the court's determinations, and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold its findings.” (J.H. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding. Father was inconsistent in his visits and inappropriate when he did visit, bringing an unauthorized visitor and encouraging N.V. to misbehave at his treatment center. Father failed to maintain contact with the Department or make substantial progress on his case plan, and the juvenile court could reasonably find this failure was not excused by Father's change of phone numbers or the Covid-19 orders, as Father suggests. Father's recent efforts to attend AA/NA meetings, parenting classes, and therapy, while laudable, were too late to demonstrate a substantial probability of reunification. The juvenile court's order terminating reunification services as to N.V. was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
II. Father's Section 388 Petition as to B.K
“A juvenile court dependency order may be changed, modified, or set aside at any time. (§ 385.) A parent may petition the court for such a modification on grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence. (§ 388, subd. (a).) The parent, however, must also show that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child. (§ 388, subd. (a)(2); [citation].) Whether the juvenile court should modify a previously made order rests within its discretion, and its determination may not be disturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 525.)
Father received two years of services in B.K.'s prior dependency proceeding, yet B.K. was removed again less than a month after the proceeding was dismissed. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding Father's attendance at AA/NA meetings, parenting classes, and therapy in the month and a half before the hearing on the section 388 petition did not demonstrate changed circumstances. Father also failed to demonstrate an order granting the petition would be in B.K.'s best interests. B.K. was doing well in a stable placement with foster parents who were interested in adopting him, and he exhibited no particular attachment to Father. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's petition.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur. NEEDHAM, J., RODRIGUEZ, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.